Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sangdeboeuf (talk | contribs) at 00:37, 6 March 2020 (→Latinx "alternatives": "When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus."). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people complementary and alternative medicine governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed They should not be given alerts for those areas.

• Read the newest discussions
• Skip to bottom

My editing tips.

Please comment on Talk:21 Savage

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:21 Savage. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Moot. Mathglot (talk) 10:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

FYI

Thanks for your efforts helping everyone play nice. In case you didn't know, the other ed filed at ANI. Just before it got archived I appended a boomerang request. Apparently when the bot does archiving, it doesn't look for new subsections, just tweaks to the main thread, because the whole thing went to archives with no action right after I added this. That's OK with me. The goal is prevention, and if trouble re-occurs its in the archives. If you are doing some coaching, see especially the two collapsed sections at the end of the boomerang, because they are about longterm behavior pattern. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, NewsAndEventsGuy, thanks for your kind comments. (And thanks for responding here, rather than on Serge's page.) I have to admit to being entirely unaware of that ANI thread. I've read it now, and was struck by a few things: the fact that you both have clean block records (I'm aware of Serge's situation at sv-wiki; not really relevant here), the length of the thread, and the number of heavy hitters and admins who weighed in. It was a little saddening, in a way, because so much effort was expended regarding two editors who I think have a lot of positive things to contribute; clearly, you are both here to improve the encyclopedia.

This doesn't mean I'm unaware of past issues; I've had run-ins with Serge before on a couple of unrelated issues, and he can be prickly, but I know his heart is in the right place, and AGF really is the right approach here, as it is almost always. Sure, I wish you two could get along, but not everybody gets along, and it doesn't always mean there's something seriously wrong with one of the people involved; sometimes, people just don't make great dance partners, and it's nobody's really at fault. The best thing if you bump into them at a party, is just smile and nod, and move away and dance with someone else. And vice versa, of course. If there's any way I can be of any assistance as a neutral broker here, or elsewhere, feel free to call on me. That's a serious offer. Sorry I couldn't have been of more help earlier in this case. Oh: your observation about archiving is interesting; I wasn't aware of the subsection wrinkle; so I learned something; thanks!

Serge, if you happen to be lurking here, please extend N&EG the same courtesy he just extended to you, by refraining from interacting directly with him in the same talk section as you. (He responded here, instead of at your page, is what I'm talking about.) But please feel free to create *another* section below this one, if you like. I'm kind of hoping you won't, because the more you each let some distance accumulate between the two of you, the better you both will like it, I think. But I'm here for you as well, any time you need it. Just not in the same section on my Talk page; okay? Mathglot (talk) 10:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

My plan is.... to just edit. If the other ed wants to work on the same thing I'm working on, it's likely we will interact again, and the usual wikipedia expectations apply to everyone. Thanks again for all your work helping anyone. As for me, this issue may go back to sleep in the archives. Bye! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Walmart Canada Bank

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Walmart Canada Bank. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bell Media Radio

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bell Media Radio. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Bible and homosexuality

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Bible and homosexuality. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Contreras Lopez

Hi, what do you mean about the citation. I am confused. Can you clarified of what you mean about the citation please. Thank you ContrerasLopez (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, ContrerasLopez, can you provide a link to a discussion, or if you don't know how to make a link, just explain in plain English below what article or discussion page you are talking about? Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Is about this article. Islam and gender segregation — Preceding unsigned comment added by ContrerasLopez (talk • contribs) 00:10, November 1, 2019 (UTC)

Hello again, ContrerasLopez. Yes, I can see that you have been having some trouble at the article Islam and gender segregation, with your edits being undone by various editors. I also see several posts of yours at Shalor's talk page. Now, can you please restate your question about the citation? What citation, in what article? It sounds like you are questioning something I said earlier, but as I have never edited Islam and gender segregation or its Talk page, I'm not quite sure what you are talking about. Can you be more specific? Maybe Shalor can shed some light. Mathglot (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Mathglot! ContrerasLopez is editing the section on Islam and gender segregation in Islamic countries - it looks like they are specifically having issues when it comes to the Afghanistan and Iran sections. We ironed out the issues with the Saudi Arabia section, but they're running into issues when it comes to what they should add in the other sections and how to format sourcing. I think that they've more or less figured out the process for creating citations and I'm working with them on what would fall into the realm of segregation as opposed to the wider topic of treatment of women under Islam, but it looks like there's still some work to be done. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2019 Canadian federal election

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Canadian federal election. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

San Francisco

I see your point of view. I agree with the change you made making the California map the primary map. My thinking was that perhaps the map points just to downtown and ignores the fact that a larger area around that pushpin is also San Francisco. Maybe an image map with the city highlighted within the Bay area would be more appropriate. IWI (chat) 22:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox organization

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox organization. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:People's Party of Canada

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:People's Party of Canada. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

New to Misplaced Pages

Hi Mathglot!

Thank you for your friendly reaction to my second editing suggestion ever. This is the first time I write to an editor. Before, I couldn't find where to write. Yes, it's bewildering to me.

I knew that my incertion was unsupported by a source. I didn't know how to incert <source needed>. However, it's common sense what I wrote and should not be delete, I feel.

Why is there no spell corrector on this page? English is my second language and I'm a bit dyslectic.

Thank you. Be well! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PiepZeiDeMuis (talk • contribs) 09:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

New message from Mac Henni

Sorry for the confusion. I elaborated a bit here. Maccore Henni _{Mii! Pictochat Mii!} 02:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Constitution of Japan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Constitution of Japan. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for talking with me in the move discussion for queer erasure. You noted that I transgressed a norm, advocating for a mis-match between Misplaced Pages's content and what reliable sources say, and I want to acknowledge rule breaking. We all are supposed to follow the rule and I know there is WP:IAR, but it is right of you to express anxiety about transgressions. I wanted to post here to say that speaking out as you did is the right response to anyone like me moving off the tracks and into what many would call an error. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lynching

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lynching. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

Hello, I wouldn't usually make a comment like this because I prefer to avoid conflict. But I feel like this is important. This is about your comment on the revision of my edit on Latinx. I am not arguing about the revision, but I would like you to think about your conduct in this matter. For reference, the comment you left was "Undid revision 926712233 by MalB404 (talk) That's unsourced, with a whiff of POV, and a big helping of misleading edit summary. Please don't do that.". So I am going to break this down:

• "That's unsourced". On WP:V it says "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material". I did not consider a grammar/spelling change would require a citation, and the original statement didn't have a citation either. I am unsure why this would need a citation in this context.
• "whiff of POV". As this was a simple change, I really don't understand how it would be considered not neutral.
• "big helping of misleading edit summary" I changed "among non-binary gender Latinos" to "among Latinx non-binary people". According to WP:SUMMARYNO, editors should make sure to mention all the changes they make. I am unsure what you think I left out in my edit summary.

I was trying to improve the article because the phrase "among non-binary gender Latinos" does not sound grammatically correct. I am not a grammar expert, so it's possible that I am wrong about this. If you had informed me what exactly I did wrong, that would have been more helpful. Additionally, this article is about a gender neutral version of Latino so it makes sense to use Latinx here. Plus, there is an abundance of uses of this term on Misplaced Pages that sets precedence for its usage here which would make it more accurate. I honestly did not think this would be something to contest for the reasons I gave above. I certainly did not think it would cause such hostility.

I don't know you and I don't think we have had any interactions in the past, so I am unsure why you reacted in this way. I am not looking for an apology or a response or anything like that, I just wanted you to know for the future that this edit summary felt inflammatory and nonsensical from my perspective. It may be helpful for you to consider your choice of words when you are faced with similar situations. MalB404 Ⓐ 🏴 (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Coddling of the American Mind

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Coddling of the American Mind. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jo-Ann Roberts

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jo-Ann Roberts. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Help talk:IPA/Standard German

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Help talk:IPA/Standard German. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Senate of Canada

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Senate of Canada. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited When the going gets tough, the tough get going, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Thomas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Canadian Senators Group

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Canadian Senators Group. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dexter Avenue Baptist Church

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dexter Avenue Baptist Church. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Windows 98

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Windows 98. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

tip o' the hat

I hope you don't mind but it was necessary to tip you hat to the left rather than to the right to accommodate the usual location of the EotW Banner of Appreciation. I meant absolutely no political statement or bias by my action. (;~) Hope you understand. ―Buster7 ☎ 14:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on modification https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Progesterone&oldid=928594236

Hi,

About the change https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Progesterone&oldid=928594236, although the original wording seems easier to understand, it actually could easily lead to an inexact interpretation which is that "Women are less competetive than men because they have progesterone", which is not the meaning of the reference. My wording is more exact, and I think it is much less misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vermouthmjl (talk • contribs) 10:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Swaminarayan Sampraday

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Swaminarayan Sampraday. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Cal-Uralic II

If you're just interested in fun way-out proposals, this one is mostly unrelated to Hungarian, but maybe you'll get a chuckle out of it anyway — the other Cal-Uralic proposal from 2013 (with some very short comments by me here). --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 15:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Polish–Ukrainian War

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Polish–Ukrainian War. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mottainai

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mottainai. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2019 Romanian presidential election

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Romanian presidential election. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the email you sent me

When you're ready to address that matter on Misplaced Pages, I'll comment on it then. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. Mathglot (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Syriac Orthodox Church

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Syriac Orthodox Church. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Peace Dove

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ―Buster7 ☎ 14:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Korea

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Korea. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Beatrix von Storch

Hello there. I was wondering why you believe we should use an English translation of a legal surname, instead of the surname itself for the article? It appears that other users before me, on the article's talk page, agree. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Willthacheerleader18: Thank you for raising this issue, however a user talk page is the wrong venue for a content discussion. Let's take it up at the article Talk page, where all interested editors can take part. Mathglot (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced material on National Rifle Association

Your recent editing history at National Rifle Association shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Your additions might be warranted, but please discuss them first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frotz (talk • contribs) 17:26, December 25, 2019 (UTC)

Moi? Edit warring? and receiving a {{uw-3rr}} Template for a single edit, to boot? My goodness gracious! C'est invraisemblable! No, wait; it's all right, actually. At least I'm in good company, with three other editors having had intemperate comments added to their user pages by you as well, for little or no provocation that I can see. Nevertheless, I've responded more in detail at your Talk page. Have a great day! Mathglot (talk) 02:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Violating {{tl|uw-3rr}} (Template:Uw-3rr) is not necessary to be warned against edit warring. See {{subst:Uw-1rr}} (Template:Uw-1rr). You can be legitimately warned if it looks like you're being disruptive. So, please lay off until the discussions are complete. By the way, I'm not clear on why you think my objection to deleting an article on the book "Don't Make the Black Kids Angry" is particularly relevant. Does it have anything to do with historical usage of gun control to oppress blacks? -- Frotz(talk) 06:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Let's start on a point of agreement. You said:

Violating {{tl|uw-3rr}} (Template:Uw-3rr) is not necessary to be warned against edit warring. See {{subst:Uw-1rr}} (Template:Uw-1rr).

We agree. You are absolutely, positively right! So now go find someone who violated WP:1RR, and go template them. You won't find anybody on this page who violated WP:1RR at the NRA article. (There's an asterisk on that; but let's continue for now.)

Let's go on to another point of agreement:

You can be legitimately warned if it looks like you're being disruptive.

Absolutely right, again! We agree! My first edit at that article in six weeks was this revert yesterday, with a generously complete edit summary pointing out the precise reason for it, including a mention of seven specific citations, and adding two new references on top of those, in order to respond to your objection of insufficient sourcing. Is *that* the one where "it looks like you're being disruptive"?

Now, let's go on to something we might not agree on. You said,

So, please lay off until the discussions are complete.

I thought I'd translate a bit here. I think by this you mean, "Please leave lay off and leave my version in there until the discussions are complete." Finally, to your last point:

I'm not clear on why you think my objection to deleting an article on the book "Don't Make the Black Kids Angry" is particularly relevant.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I never heard of that book, and I didn't know you objected to it. I'm afraid I can't help you with this one; sorry!

Oh, I almost forgot: the "asterisk" that I promised. I guess I wasn't telling the whole truth above, when I said, "You won't find anybody on this page, who violated WP:1RR at the NRA article." That wasn't completely accurate. Because there is someone, namely, you. You violated WP:1RR at the article. I'm not sure what you hope to gain by erroneously templating other editors for things they are innocent of, but that you are guilty of. But you should really knock it off for your own sake, because if you keep it up, at some point it will be seen as a disruptive time-suck, and someone may take you to WP:ANI about it. Not my call, but maybe this would be a good point for you to stop digging.

P.S. I can see you're having some trouble linking policy pages. Rather than coding: <nowiki>{{tl|uw-3rr}}</nowiki> (]) as you did above, which kind of gives gobbledygook, and is a template and not the policy anyway, code it this way instead: ]. Mathglot (talk) 08:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

As I stated on my talk page, I mistakenly assumed that book had something to do with this and for that I apologize. Back to the topic at hand, this started with the addition of unverified material on December 24, 2019, which I reverted the day after with a polite note warning against addition of unverified material. Rather than discussing this, you chose to pile on. That and only that is my objection to your actions. In the meantime, the only person arguing in favor of keeping that label is DBalling, who pointed to a news article that didn't actually say what he claimed it said and then he started ranting about Donald Trump. That's not a particularly neutral way of behaving. You, however, aren't. Rather you're looking for something solid with which to go forward and then told off DBalling for trying to derail the discussion. We're both in agreement there. Given that, I'm confused as to why you took the reversion action that you did.PS, thanks for the coding advice.-- Frotz(talk) 09:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

No worries about the book; I see now what you are talking about: it's an old discussion on your Talk page that dates back to 2015, that Sigma Bot never archived, because it was never signed, by the now indeffed author of the post. I added a sig to that old post for you, so sooner or later, you can expect it to be archived.

As for the content dispute: I try not to "pick sides" in a content dispute based on my own biases, but rather, I try to persuade by dint of Misplaced Pages policies, as best as I can interpret them. I reverted you based on my reading of existing sources in the body of the article, which I tried to explain in the long edit summary at the revert. It could be that I am wrong, and if persuaded, I will self-revert. But my talk page is the wrong place for that discussion, because anything concerning the content of the page should take place on the article Talk page, as no one else will see it here, and we won't get the benefit of the views and wisdom of other editors on the topic. Feel free, if you wish, to copy your comments, and my follow-up, to the Talk page, as long as you know how to do that cleanly. If you would like the comments moved over there, but are nervous about how to accomplish it, I can do it for you, but I can't move your comments without your explicit say-so, because it would violate WP:TPO. But if you tell me you want them moved, then I can do it; I just need to know exactly which posts (best would be to give the full, date-time timestamps of each post you want moved). Otherwise, we can just let this discussion go quiet, and you can pick it up again at the article in your own words, with, or without, copying the discussion from here to there. Are we good? Mathglot (talk) 09:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Your violent reverts of real edits are more harmful and less meaningful than my by-the-way over-wikifying

It has been hurting and disgusting.

I just fix. No interest in interacting with some hungury hunters for their funny power in reverting massively and recklessly.

That is why we must stop. You stop too please. Stop revert my recent edits. And I will write edit summary every time about exact fixes.

Thanks.

Hopelesswiki (talk) 12:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Hopelesswiki: I know exactly who you are, and I will stop when you are indefinitely blocked for the sockpuppet that you are. Until somebody blocks you indefinitely, just keep in mind that any edit of yours that is in violation of Misplaced Pages policy, is subject to removal, just like edits by any other editor. And since about 95% of your edits are in violation of policy, almost all of your work will be for naught, as it will all be removed. Thanks for the authorlink fix. Happy editing (until you are blocked again). Mathglot (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Stop damaging like Ruhollah Khomeini and it is finished. So please stop vandalising Misplaced Pages in the name of hunting me. I fix citations and notes not only for formatting, but you damage just for hunting my formatting. Your reckless behaviour is not justified by even executing me for my crimes if any. ---- Hopelesswiki (talk)

Sorry, I did not have time or interest to respond alone to the group of eager hunters. But you all recklessly simplified what I did. Distinguishing notes from citations, fitting Refs with responsive version of Reflist, adding refbegin/refend, correcting section titles to fit their nature (eg Expl. Notes should not be called/put under References regardless of any layout preferences; Citations, cited sources, general refs are part of references; there should not be duplicated sections titled Footnotes/Endnotes AND (Notes footnotes OR Citation footnotes) at a same time; a list of more than books should not be called bibiography while the section title "Bibilography" itself is always confused with Refs, Further reading, and List of works/selected publications, and should be avoided as a common sense especially with non-books listed; Further Reading should not be part of References; ...), correcting parameters are not just simply changing "citation styles". Sometimes what I impose is just the article's exsiting or unclear style(s) (eg in one template or one page, param names were used/named in alreadly inconsistent ways, and I by the way fixed them into the most accurate forms to fit the values), or simply the natural meanings not just "my preferences". I did not change harv/APA/Vancouver citation styles, I fixed "cite" templates but also "sfn" template. However, refs should use ref tags and notes should use note tags.

For spacing, how confusing and disgusting

is

url=http://xxx.com/page?url=yyyy 

 ? it should be

url = http://xxx.com/page?url=yyyy 

etc etc etc... Proper coding style should be human-friendly and machine-friendly and encouraged, by the way of editing a page for other reasons.

So for the quality of Misplaced Pages please stop massively reverting old edits. Thanks.

I always wanted to quit Misplaced Pages forever for ten plus years but so manu disgusting confusions here randomly made me edit again just for the reader-friendly logical order and quality, not for hunting, not for a glorious user name, not fun at all. I do want to stop now and for ever but please do not revert again all my meaningful edits, though pointless in your eyes but not as harmful as your violently massive reverts.

---- Hopelesswiki (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Mathglot, do you have diffs that show that this user used prior accounts (as mentioned above and at User_talk:129.94.8.198#Disruptive_pattern_of_edits)? If so, would you please bring it to WP:SPI? czar 22:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  I traced some of this discussion and opened Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Hopelesswiki (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 23:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  @Czar: Sorry I missed responding in a more timely manner (RL issues) but it seems to have been resolved without me. Thanks for your assistance on this; the encyclopedia is the better for it. Mathglot (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Elizabethan Religious Settlement/GA1

Mathglot, you opened this review on November 29, and as best I can determine, have not returned since. It looks like you opened it to oppose (GA reviews don't have Oppose/Support "voting") due to edits by a just-blocked editor, who was not the nominator (but had made a number of edits to the article in early November that the nominator had cleaned up), instead of reviewing based on the GA criteria, in what appears to be your first GA review.

If you are not prepared to (or don't want to) do a full GA review, or don't have time for it at present, I will be happy to find another reviewer to take over the review. Please let me know. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC) @BlueMoonset: thanks for the ping; I had entirely forgotten about this. You are right on all counts. Please find someone to take it over if you wish to and it merits it, or feel free to simply close it waiting for someone who feels it’s worth renominating. I’m fine with whatever you think the best course of action is. Mathglot (talk) 06:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Righting great wrongs: Han Chinese

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I notice that a few of your recent edits involve removing any mention of Han Chinese from articles about people from any country or group that are not residing in China:

in this edit at Malaysian Chinese, you said, Removed 'han chinese' because it refers to PRC citizens only, and have been edit-warring to preserve your preferred view. (See section above.) at this edit at Teochew people, you said, removed reference to 'han chinese' and 'native' since these terms do not apply to diasporic peoples. at this edit at Tang dynasty, you said, removed 'native Han' and 'foreign' because not sure what ethnicity or origin said populations were. Articles at Misplaced Pages must take a neutral point of view, and are based on verifiability by reliabie sources. It is well-documented that Han Chinese are one of the world's largest ethnicities, with 18% of the world population, residing in dozens of countries. Your editing and claims that "'han chinese' refers to PRC citizens only" is only your opinion. This seems like an attempt to Right Great Wrongs. Please revert your recent changes to these articles, or find some reliable sources that say that the term Han Chinese refers only to people residing in China. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The articles cited by reputable South-East Asian scholars below do not refer to Malaysian Chinese as 'Han Chinese'. You are welcome to look through the sources yourself to verify this. My edit is justifiable by Wiki policy. Learn how to use a library and engage in proper scholarly activity. You are a disgrace to your country and nationality.Nameless123456 (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

It is very difficult to understand your message, because you appear to be adding quotations from talk page comments or edit summaries of mine, intermixed with comments of yours, and it's difficult to know what is what. I will try to disentangle it in the coming days, and respond. For starters, you mention the following articles:

• Malaysian Chinese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Teochew people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tang dynasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'll look again later and respond more in detail another time. In the meantime, see WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Mathglot (talk) 10:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nameless123456:, Okay, I see now that your comment above is a cut/paste of the rendered part of my comment entitled "Righting great wrongs: Han Chinese" which I added to your Talk page in this edit on 15 September. You apparently did not like the comment, and removed it today, adding the notation "Removed comment by waste of space author", then brought your confused case here.

But this issue concerns your behavior at those three articles, and the proper venue for this discussion is at your User Talk page. I won't be making any further comments about this here on my Talk page, as it's the wrong venue for it. I can only remind you that deleting the post from your Talk page doesn't remove it entirely; it can still be seen by Admins (or anybody who looks at your talk page history), so I suggest you pay attention to the advice I gave you in that comment, and avoid adding your personal opinion into articles, lest you be at risk of losing your editing privileges.

On a separate note, I'll leave you a warning about personal attacks on your Talk page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Traps is not a slur against transgender women

Cross dressers or “Trap”

Is a slang term towards mostly homosexual men who pass for women while still identifying themselves as men.

They have not nor have any interest in gender reassignment surgery and still most importantly identify as they’re birth gender.

Therefore they are not transgender and neither is the term. Kingtotoro (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Responded to you at the article talk page, which is the proper venue for discussing improvements to an article. Mathglot (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Humble request

Hello! With only the very best intentions in mind, I make a request to you to kindly comment at Talk:Jat people#Jat population in India. The reason(s) for the removal of a news article from a south Asian newspaper as reference for some content that in not in line with the views of scholars has been highlighted and justified (links to noticeboard/discussion are present at that section in talk page), which was added without any discussion and consensus is being maintained on an article that gets significant views, while excellent content has been posted to justify its replacement, is still on the page because of (in my opinion) lack of a comment from any other experienced editor at the talk page. Whatever you feel, whatever your opinion is, kindly share there once. Kindly comment, please. 188.170.192.206 (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

What's next?

@Mathglot and @Elinruby: What should our next endeavor be? In the talk page of the Offshoot article, I suggested we translate the article about the 2014 Brazilian economic crisis, which I edited and promoted as Good Article in the Portuguese Misplaced Pages @ pt:Crise político-econômica no Brasil desde 2014. Now it is no longer only about the economic, but also the political crisis, which is related to Lava Jato and, consequently, the Offshoots article.

I'll be really glad to help translate this one.

We can also translate the article about the phases of Lava Jato. I will answer your questions about how to properly translate something, but I'm not super excited to translate that. It's difficult and it's not my favorite topic. --Bageense 22:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'll be slowly translating the article in the next weeks and maybe months. If you want to take a look and/or supervise it... User:Bageense/sandbox/2014 Brazilian economic crisis. Simultaneously, I'll be translating the Lava Jato phases draft as well. Cheers. --Bageense 15:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Your revert on Milky Way

I have started a discussion on the article Talk page, and invite you to participate. 07:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jusdafax (talk • contribs) 07:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jusdafax:, our messages crossed. Thanks for raising the article Talk page discussion, and I will respond to content disagreements there. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 07:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

You are cordially invited to the SPIE Photonics West edit-a-thon on 02.02.2020

I am delighted to invite you to the SPIE Photonics West 2020 edit-a-thon, at Park Central Hotel (Franciscan I, 3rd Level / 50 Third Street / San Francisco, California), on Sunday, February 2, 2020, at 5:00-7:00pm.

Newcomers and experienced Wikimedians are welcome to participate alongside SPIE conference attendees. Admission is free. Training will be provided.

Details and sign-in here

See you soon! All the best, --Rosiestep (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Lap dance as erotic sexual denial

Regarding the picture on erotic sexual denial, the caption was not my own opinion. It's a direct translation from Norwegian on the Norwegian Misplaced Pages article no:erotisk sexnekt. I don't know who originally wrote it there, but the Norwegian Misplaced Pages seems to have accepted it. JIP | Talk 19:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, JIP, thanks, I appreciate that you didn't write it, and that it is a translation from Norwegian. But as a long-time editor here, you are well familiar with our standards of verifiability, and the fact that Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source, therefore nothing written on no-wiki (or any other Misplaced Pages) can be used as justification for anything on English Misplaced Pages. The caption therefore requires sourcing, if you wish to include it. (On a side note: when you do copy or translate material from any Wikpedia article in any language, Wkipedia's licensing requirements require us to add some boilerplate to the edit summary indicating its provenance; you can find sample statements of translation attribution at WP:TFOLWP; please copy that, and use it next time you translate a caption or article text into English Misplaced Pages. As this is not policy or guideline, but a legal requirement, it has higher priority than Misplaced Pages policy, and may not be omitted. If you forget to include attribution with your translation or copied material, you can go back and add it later; see WP:RIA.) Thanks for your attempts to improve this article. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Your revert at History of India

Hello, I see you reverted my edit here. Undavalli Caves is one of the most prominent structures of that period, the stupa on the other hand, does not fully exist today, and we only have little information regarding it. As such, the stupa does not even have it own article. Can you please revert your revision? Undavalli Caves is well referenced and belongs to a significant dynasty, the Vishnukundina. Let me know your concerns if you have them, if not, kindly put my revision back. (2600:1001:B013:96F3:E876:A68A:BD30:288A (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC))

IP, I'm unable to ping you at an IP address; please consider signing up for an account. My revert was based partly on what I was able to find at the Ghantasala article, and partly on your "fix error" Edit summary. I had not seen your other summary, "replace with more notable image of the period (Tag:references removed)" because unfortunately the Review pending changes process does not show all of the edit summaries, only the last, I believe.

@Fylindfotberserk:, do you concur with IP's sentiment here? Should I self-revert? Mathglot (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Ghantasala article is about village, this stupa is not notable compared to Undavalli Caves. The cave still exists and was built by a significant dynasty of the period, the Vishnukundina dynasty. I also provided source for it as well on the edit summary. Kindly revert back to my version, it was well researched. All evidence I provided point to my edit being valid and it was accepted by other reviewers. Thank you for understanding. (2600:1001:B013:96F3:E876:A68A:BD30:288A (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC))

IP, please be patient. I'm seeking additional feedback. Mathglot (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Okey...Let me know if you need anything further. (2600:1001:B013:96F3:E876:A68A:BD30:288A (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC))

No need to self-revert Mathglot. What you did is right. This is a high-level article and major changes need to pass through WP:CONSENSUS. We cannot have something just because one person decides so. Let them get their changes approved in the article talk page first. Regards. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

IP 2600, have you seen this? Mathglot (talk) 09:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Changing one small image requires wp:CONSENSUS? If that is the case, why allow people to edit it the first place? If every little thing should be through talk page. Also, what is the dispute? My change was accepted by other reviewers, and Mathglot yourself claimed it was somewhat of an accident. (2600:1001:B013:96F3:E876:A68A:BD30:288A (talk) 11:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC))

IP 2600, this is a content dispute, not a behavioral one; meaning, my Talk page is the wrong place for this discussion. I realize you're unhappy with the result thus far, so if you want to continue discussing this, I can move this to the article Talk page if you wish, and we can carry on discussing there. Let me know your wishes. I won't discuss any further on this page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Translation from Çubuk, Ankara

I started translating an article on the Çubuk District in Ankara, Turkey. I have completed most of the translation work but I'm having trouble making everything sound right since. I translated the article word by word from Turkish but it doesn't sound quite right. If you aren't busy, could you look into it and rephrase it a bit? Thank you for your time. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Rodrigo Valequez:, sure, but as this is about improving the article, this discussion belongs squarely on the article talk page. I'll respond to you there. Mathglot (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Çubuk, Ankara#Recent additions

Your view.

Dear Mathglot,

I have seen your contribution to my "remark" (!) about the Britannica Encyclopedia.

It makes me sad and nothing "on the reverse side".

Be happy, but not in my room.

145.129.136.48 (talk) 12:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you, but...

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; Misplaced Pages needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere _{(click me!)} 20:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Confidence

I feel confident enough now to translate myself the 2014 Brazilian economic crisis article. I've written a lot in the past two days. If you want to copy edit it... that'd be great. Is there a place where I can request copy-editing?

I've temporarily stopped translating the Car Wash phases article to do that. I'll wait for you to resume editing, then we continue. --Bageense 16:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bageense: I’m watching and making small edits though not translations just now because that’s too complicated while I’m mobile. Assuming my flight isn’t canceled due to the virus I should be able to resume in a couple weeks or so. Mathglot (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Latinx "alternatives"

I believe the D in WP:BRD stands for Discuss. You didn't address any of my actual concerns on the talk page. There was no consensus about the section heading before any of my edits. Cheers. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

That is exactly what it stands for, and you have 5 million editors you can discuss with, and maybe they will all agree with you, or enough will, and then consensus will be with you and you can make that change. But you don’t have consensus, and I’m not sure you even understand Misplaced Pages’s concept of consensus. From watching your behavior it seems to be, Make a change, get reverted, open a Talk page section, get no support or response at all, make your reverted change again. Is that how you think Misplaced Pages works? You seem to be here shoehorning your own opinions whether policy based or not into articles. Consensus doesn’t really matter, does it? Mathglot (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

One would be enough. "When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus." If you won't engage in good-faith discussion, you can't claim "consensus". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)